Why in news?

Recently, the Supreme Court orally observed that “Reservation cannot be on the basis of religion”. The apex court was hearing a challenge to the Calcutta High Court’s decision in May to strike down reservations granted to 77 classes — predominantly from the Muslim community — within the quota for Other Backward Classes (OBC).

Earlier, in November 2024, the Supreme Court denied Scheduled Caste (SC) status to a woman who had converted to Christianity.

Through these instances, the relationship between religion and reservations has once again been brought into focus. Since the Constitution of India came into force in 1950, both the Centre and the Supreme Court have attempted to define the extent to which religion can be considered for providing reservation benefits.

What’s in today’s article?

• Religion as criteria for OBC reservations
• Religious Restriction in SC Status
• Key Issues Awaiting Supreme Court Adjudication

Religion as criteria for OBC reservations

• Constitutional Framework for Religious Groups in Reservations
  • There is no express prohibition on identifying religious groups as beneficiaries of OBC or Scheduled Tribe reservations.
  • However, such efforts have primarily been within the OBC category.
  • Article 16(4) of the Constitution empowers states to provide reservations for “any backward class of citizens” inadequately represented in state services.
  • Kerala has included Muslims within the OBC quota since 1956, followed by Karnataka in 1995 and Tamil Nadu in 2007.
• Karnataka and the Role of Backward Classes Commissions
  • In Karnataka, reservations for Muslims were introduced based on the Third Backward Classes Commission report (1990) chaired by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy.
    • The report identified Muslims “as a whole” as socially and economically backward.
  • Similarly, the Justice Rajender Sachar Committee report (2006) highlighted the “abysmally low” representation of Muslim OBCs in Central Government departments.
    • It emphasized that the benefits of backward class entitlements had yet to reach them.
• Indra Sawhney Judgment and Its Significance
• The Supreme Court’s Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992) judgment clarified that OBC reservations aimed to address historical discrimination.
• It ruled that while religion, race, caste, and other group identities were relevant, they could not be the sole criterion for granting reservations.
• This ensured backwardness was determined objectively.
• Calcutta High Court Decision (2024)
  • In May, 2024, the Calcutta High Court struck down OBC reservations for 77 classes, 75 of which were Muslim, as the reservations were granted without objective criteria to determine backwardness.
  • The court observed that religion appeared to be the sole basis for declaring these communities as OBCs, which violated the principles laid down in the Indra Sawhney case.

Religious Restriction in SC Status

• Constitutional Basis for Scheduled Caste (SC) Reservations
  • Article 341(1) of the Constitution empowers the President to specify castes, races, or tribes deemed to be Scheduled Castes (SCs) for the purposes of the Constitution.
  • Accordingly, The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was issued, listing SC communities state-wise.
• Religion as a barrier in SC reservations
  • Clause 3 of the 1950 order states that individuals professing religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism cannot be considered Scheduled Castes.
  • Initially limited to Hindus, the order was expanded to include SC Hindus converting to Sikhism in 1956 and Buddhism in 1990.
• Judicial Position: Soosai v. Union of India (1985)
  • In the Soosai case, a cobbler from the Adi-Dravida SC community was denied benefits after converting to Christianity.
  • The Supreme Court did not answer whether a religious convert would retain their caste status after conversion but held this would not be sufficient to access SC benefits.
  • A person must prove that caste-based social handicaps continue to exist with oppressive severity in the new religious environment.
• Ranganath Mishra Commission Recommendations (2007)
  • Constituted in 2004, it found that the caste system transcends religious boundaries and affects all Indian communities.
  • It recommended that a change of religion should not affect a person’s SC status once included in the SC list.
  • However, the Centre has rejected these findings in recent years, leading to periodic halts in efforts to include converts from Christianity and Islam under SC reservations.

Key Issues Awaiting Supreme Court Adjudication

• Challenge to the 1950 Scheduled Castes Order
  • The constitutional validity of the 1950 Scheduled Castes order, particularly clause 3, is under scrutiny in the Ghazi Saaduddin v. State of Maharashtra case, pending since 2004.
  • In 2011, the Supreme Court decided to examine the constitutionality of this clause.
  • However, in April 2024, the court deferred hearings, noting that the Centre had formed a new commission to review whether religious converts should retain SC status.
• The K G Balakrishnan Commission
  • The Centre rejected the Ranganath Mishra Commission’s 2007 recommendations, which supported extending SC benefits to converts.
  • Instead, it formed a new commission chaired by former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan to assess the issue.
  • The commission has conducted public hearings across states and received an extension in November 2024 to submit its report by October 2025.
• Debate on OBC Reservations for Religious Groups
  • The Supreme Court is also addressing whether OBC reservations can be provided to religious groups as a whole.
  • In 2005, the Andhra Pradesh government introduced a law granting 5% OBC reservations to Muslims, which the AP High Court struck down the same year.
  • The High Court ruled that the government failed to apply objective criteria for classifying Muslims as a backward class.
    • Though the SC stated it would hear this case after deciding the challenge to reservations for Economically Weaker Sections, which it did on November 7, 2022, there has been no movement on the matter.